Could the Big Ten killed off Big East football back in 2004 during the ACC raids?

I think they could have. BE fb was down to Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, WVU, UConn's upgrading program, and then Temple who they were kicking out. If the Big Ten would have invited Pitt and Syracuse they could have killed the conference and landed Notre Dame as the 14th member. The 5 Catholic schools wouldn't have tried to rebuild the football conference, not for the likes of WVU, Rutgers, and UConn. WVU would have lobbied hard to get into the SEC, possibly with Louisville as their #14. If they don't get in I think WVU thinks long and hard about C-USA membership as a fb affiliate or full member. Rutgers and UConn likely would have stayed in the BE and been football independents like Temple or joined the MAC for the sport as Temple later did. Notre Dame would have seen the BE for the dumpster fire it was and decided to leave hopefully for the Big Ten. Considering they didn't want to be a part of the Catholic 7 I doubt they would have stuck with that group even after adding Midwestern Catholic schools to fill out the league.

This would have left the Big 12 stable-- that is unless a PAC 16 gambit would have been successful, in which case the Big 10 could step in to grab Nebraska and Missouri to get to 16 as well.

The Big Ten isn't in the business of "killing conferences." Penn State was indie, Nebraska given a pass, UMD left after the ACC went to 14.5/15, and the deconstruction of the Big East was under way when Rutgers announced.

The Big East was going to surive even if Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers took off back then. Too many schools wanted to be in the Big East, and maybe to an extent, those basketball programs wouldn't have been so cold to some of them like today (believe me, Tulane was more deserving back then than now). The only thing that would have happened: schools like WVU and Louisville may have had to endure both ECU and Memphis when now they don't.

Bishin--thanks for the response. I'm not so sure that a Big East Conference that only had WVU, Rutgers, and UConn as full members playing football would have rebuilt as a league. WVU--as they were in 2011 would have been dying to leave. Providence, St John's, Seton Hall, Villanova, Georgetown, and Notre Dame would not have been inclined to spread the conference footprint to include schools without basketball pedigrees in the Southeast---case in point--their opposition to Tulane and ECU and their begrudging acceptance of Memphis, UCF, SMU, and Houston. Rutgers had no pull within the Big East--the basketball schools never liked them and wouldn't have tried to help them. The basketball schools would have filled their depleted ranks with basketball schools--DePaul, Marquette, Xavier, and St Louis would have been the programs they would have taken (Butler had yet to rise to prominence, St Louis gets the nod over Creighton without Marquette already being a member to advocate for them).

Sure the Big Ten wasnt in the business of killing conferences back then but taking Pitt and 'Cuse back then would have accomplished the exact same objectives that they had in this last expansion--increased East Coast presence and acquiring Notre Dame.

While Pitt it is AAU and has a medical school is not the same as either MD or Rutgers.

No, they aren't the same. Pitt's better.

Maryland's athletic department is what the B1G really needed even more than Rutgers, though. Eastern, urban, diverse, and well-situated in a region teeming with B1G alumni. And while I am very excited about Rutgers being in the Big Ten, and glad to see them rid of the Big East, until Rutgers wins several Big Ten championships in any sport, they were a cash grab and nothing more. And a total slap in the face to schools like Pitt and Missouri who have so desperately tried to gain access into the B1G on its academics and athletics. Rutgers is just a market. In fact, were it not for Don Imus some years back and the recent basketball abuse issues, nobody would know Rutgers for anything athletically.

All three (Pitt, UMD, and RU) schools have administrative failures that are putting them in these interesting positions, but at least Pitt isn't swimming in the red financially. That can't be said about the two new members, and who even knows if those guys ever start fielding new sports or putting ones they dropped back into play. You'd think for the money that wouldn't be an issue anymore, but...haven't seen many programs take these payoffs to build anything constructively outside of football. Maybe Michigan...they fielded lax.

fighting muskie wrote:

Bishin--thanks for the response. I'm not so sure that a Big East Conference that only had WVU, Rutgers, and UConn as full members playing football would have rebuilt as a league. WVU--as they were in 2011 would have been dying to leave. Providence, St John's, Seton Hall, Villanova, Georgetown, and Notre Dame would not have been inclined to spread the conference footprint to include schools without basketball pedigrees in the Southeast---case in point--their opposition to Tulane and ECU and their begrudging acceptance of Memphis, UCF, SMU, and Houston. Rutgers had no pull within the Big East--the basketball schools never liked them and wouldn't have tried to help them. The basketball schools would have filled their depleted ranks with basketball schools--DePaul, Marquette, Xavier, and St Louis would have been the programs they would have taken (Butler had yet to rise to prominence, St Louis gets the nod over Creighton without Marquette already being a member to advocate for them).

Sure the Big Ten wasnt in the business of killing conferences back then but taking Pitt and 'Cuse back then would have accomplished the exact same objectives that they had in this last expansion--increased East Coast presence and acquiring Notre Dame.

I think the issue with the Big East initially blocking Rutgers and WVU was a balance thing, politics. VT was just because they stunk. And Temple never had a shot. Even Louisville and Cincinnati...the league was fine enough with them...just weren't fond of the balance between basketballers and footballers. I think, if anything, had Villanova actually followed through and upgraded to FBS with UConn or shortly thereafter, this whole breakdown may not have happened. For UConn alone, no. For them and one of the Catholic originals? I think the direction would have changed dramatically.

I think the Big East's health really hinged on the Big XII moreso than the ACC or Big Ten. They really got it wrong in the Great Plains. I don't know if getting Utah and/or BYU would have helped keep them all there, but if at the very least Nebraska took the walk back in the 90's rather than waiting the almost 15 years to move (and UNL was the most vocal critic of the Big XII), who knows if the Big Ten would have needed to ever consider 14. Same for the ACC, even though Syracuse was such a painfully obvious addition.

I never understood the comments about how much AAU meant to the Big Ten from UNL's side. UNL were the only ones saying that and I don't think there's ever been a comment backing that viewpoint from another Big Ten school official. UNL's AAU troubles were an ongoing thing...they got booted after having ten years to make things right. The med school (or lack thereof) is part of it, and disqualifying certain ag-sci research stats another. Some of the other metrics hurt them, too (losing good faculty, bad compensation, sagging reputation, enrollment statistics, etc.).

It's hypocritical. Take Rice, for example. For an AAU university, they are a low-performer in virtually most of the AAU metrics. But...they turn down something like 80% of their applicants. UNL accepts about 60% of theirs. And Syracuse is like a coin-flip.

UNL's been in a bad spot for some time. The only way they get into the AAU again is if they absorb the med school (put it under a common chancellery with Lincoln) and Perlman not being the one reapplying.

I never understood the comments about how much AAU meant to the Big Ten from UNL's side. UNL were the only ones saying that and I don't think there's ever been a comment backing that viewpoint from another Big Ten school official. UNL's AAU troubles were an ongoing thing...they got booted after having ten years to make things right. The med school (or lack thereof) is part of it, and disqualifying certain ag-sci research stats another. Some of the other metrics hurt them, too (losing good faculty, bad compensation, sagging reputation, enrollment statistics, etc.).

It's hypocritical. Take Rice, for example. For an AAU university, they are a low-performer in virtually most of the AAU metrics. But...they turn down something like 80% of their applicants. UNL accepts about 60% of theirs. And Syracuse is like a coin-flip.

UNL's been in a bad spot for some time. The only way they get into the AAU again is if they absorb the med school (put it under a common chancellery with Lincoln) and Perlman not being the one reapplying.

I agree about the Maryland and Rutgers additions being a giant slap in the face to Missouri, Pitt, and Syracuse. Those 3 would have been much better fits and have stronger athletic programs. I would have been alright with letting one of those schools in had it been in conjunction with a larger plan that was bringing a real brand name to the Big Ten but when it's all said and done the move was nothing but an ugly money grab for the BTN.

I also think adding those two eastern schools was a shortsighted move that could potentially stymy a blockbuster western expansion--consider the implications of a Big Ten expansion that included Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

I agree about the Maryland and Rutgers additions being a giant slap in the face to Missouri, Pitt, and Syracuse. Those 3 would have been much better fits and have stronger athletic programs. I would have been alright with letting one of those schools in had it been in conjunction with a larger plan that was bringing a real brand name to the Big Ten but when it's all said and done the move was nothing but an ugly money grab for the BTN.

I also think adding those two eastern schools was a shortsighted move that could potentially stymy a blockbuster western expansion--consider the implications of a Big Ten expansion that included Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

What part about adding the New York and Washington DC/Baltimore markets don't you understand? It's about the Big Ten network and expanding the footprint. I would still love to see Missouri in the B1G.

I agree about the Maryland and Rutgers additions being a giant slap in the face to Missouri, Pitt, and Syracuse. Those 3 would have been much better fits and have stronger athletic programs. I would have been alright with letting one of those schools in had it been in conjunction with a larger plan that was bringing a real brand name to the Big Ten but when it's all said and done the move was nothing but an ugly money grab for the BTN.

I also think adding those two eastern schools was a shortsighted move that could potentially stymy a blockbuster western expansion--consider the implications of a Big Ten expansion that included Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

What part about adding the New York and Washington DC/Baltimore markets don't you understand? It's about the Big Ten network and expanding the footprint. I would still love to see Missouri in the B1G.

I agree. Nebraska was selected over Missouri as they are more of a national product, something strong enough to get viewers outside the state of Nebraska. With Rutgers and Maryland, it's about adding the markets...big ones. Both schools aren't going to put up Penn St./Ohio St/Michigan type of TV numbers in overall share percentage. But a small percentage in such large markets still likely means more overall viewers.

I agree about the Maryland and Rutgers additions being a giant slap in the face to Missouri, Pitt, and Syracuse. Those 3 would have been much better fits and have stronger athletic programs. I would have been alright with letting one of those schools in had it been in conjunction with a larger plan that was bringing a real brand name to the Big Ten but when it's all said and done the move was nothing but an ugly money grab for the BTN.

I also think adding those two eastern schools was a shortsighted move that could potentially stymy a blockbuster western expansion--consider the implications of a Big Ten expansion that included Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

What part about adding the New York and Washington DC/Baltimore markets don't you understand? It's about the Big Ten network and expanding the footprint. I would still love to see Missouri in the B1G.

I agree. Nebraska was selected over Missouri as they are more of a national product, something strong enough to get viewers outside the state of Nebraska. With Rutgers and Maryland, it's about adding the markets...big ones. Both schools aren't going to put up Penn St./Ohio St/Michigan type of TV numbers in overall share percentage. But a small percentage in such large markets still likely means more overall viewers.

I agree with the points but I still think Syracuse would have been a better add than Rutgers.

Niether owns NYC (and anyone claiming they do is dumb) both have just a little share (as NYC is a PRO town) but combine either program with tOSU/Mich/PSU and the fb scales would obviously tip in favor of whoever got in (I think the ACC still reigns in bball).

The Rutgers add was purely about getting geographically as close to NYC as possible to sell the network, however Sryacuse is the only in-state program that could get the entire state of NY to pay for it, not just NJ/NYC like Rutgers might get.

Also Syracuse georgraphically makes more sense and they at least have good history in basketball plus an excellent LAX program while Rutgers just has a long and unimpressive history in fb.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

To Rutgers' credit, they were chasing down the B1G while 'Cuse and BC were wondering if flirting with the ACC would go anywhere. So in that respect, each are ultimately where they wanted to be some twenty or so years ago.

Just like the game in Landover between PSU and Indiana showed what could happen were the Beltway a B1G-school destination, so too are the Penn State games played in the Meadowlands. The "markets" weren't just about the big cities...they were about Big Ten school alumni bases, too.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum